Section 303 — Property Law Act 2007: Legal effect of covenants running with land
Text of the provision Official document
303 Legal effect of covenants running with land (1) This section applies to a restrictive covenant, and also to a positive covenant coming into operation on or after 1 January 1987 (which is the application date specified in section 64A(6) of the Property Law Act 1952, as inserted by section 3 of the Property Law Amendment Act 1986), in either case whether expressed in an instrument or implied by this Act or any other enactment in an instrument, if— (a) the covenant burdens land of the covenantor and is intended to benefit the owner for the time being of the covenantee’s land; and (b) there is no privity of estate between the covenantor and the covenantee. (2) Every covenant to which this section applies, unless a contrary intention appears, is binding in equity on— (a) every person who becomes the owner of the burdened land (whether by acquisition from the covenantor or from any of the covenantor’s successors in title, and whether or not for valuable consideration, and whether by operation of law or otherwise); and (b) every person who is for the time being the occupier of the burdened land. (3) Every covenant to which this section applies, unless a contrary intention appears, ceases to be binding on a person referred to in subsection (2) when that person ceases to be the owner or the occupier of the burdened land but without prejudice to that person’s liability for any breach of the covenant arising before that person ceased to be the owner or occupier of the land. (4) For the purposes of this section, a contrary intention must appear in the instrument in which the covenant is expressed or implied. (5) This section overrides any other rule of law or equity, but is subject to sections 304 to 306 . Compare: 1952 No 51 s 64A(1), (2), (6)
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →